Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/11/2019 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB41 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 41-NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
1:31:57 PM
CHAIR HUGHES announced that the only order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 41, "An Act relating to the number of superior
court judges in the third judicial district; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR HUGHES stated her intention to hold SB 41 in committee.
1:32:31 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska
Court System, stated that SB 41 was introduced at the request of
the court system and would increase the number of superior court
judges by converting two district court judges to superior court
judges. She discussed the bill, but submitted a sponsor
statement for SB 41, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Alaska Court System is requesting a change to AS
22.10.120 to increase the number of superior court
judges in the state from 43 to 45. Specifically, the
court is seeking authorization for two additional
superior court seats so that the existing district
court judgeships in Homer and Valdez can each be
converted to superior court judgeships. Superior court
judges have broader jurisdiction than district court
judges; the change would allow the new judges to
handle a greater variety of cases, thus ensuring that
the caseload in the Third Judicial District is handled
more efficiently and effectively.
Currently, Homer has one district court judge, who is
planning to retire on June 28, 2019. That judge does
not have the authority to handle superior court
matters, such as felony cases, child-in-need-of-aid
cases, and family law cases. Instead, superior court
cases filed in Homer are handled by a superior court
judge from Kenai who travels there for that work. That
approach to the caseload is a growing strain on the
Kenai judges, and is not a sustainable or efficient
way to handle the cases on the Kenai Peninsula. With
the current judge retiring, this is an opportune time
to convert that seat to one with more expansive
jurisdiction, so that the one judge in Homer can
handle all the cases.
Similarly, the Valdez court currently has one district
court judgeship, and that position has been covering
all the trial court cases in Glennallen, Cordova, and
Valdez. That Valdez district court judge has now been
appointed to a judgeship in Juneau. Having a dedicated
superior court judge in this slot would enable that
judge to cover even more coastal communities, and
would provide flexibility in handling felonies, CINA
cases, and all other filings throughout the Third
District.
Because the Homer and Valdez district court judge
seats are vacant or soon will be, this bill is timely;
if passed, the solicitation for applicants to those
two positions will be for a superior court rather than
a district court judge.
1:34:06 PM
MS. MEADE further explained the bill. She said this change would
replace two district court judges with superior court judges,
which would give the ACS more flexibility since superior court
judges can preside over any trial or proceeding, including
felony, divorce, child-in-need-of-aid (CINA) and probate cases,
but district court judges have limited jurisdiction. The
district court judges handle misdemeanor, domestic violence
petitions and cases with less than $100,000 in controversy, she
said. The timing for the conversion is ideal since the Valdez
district court judge position is vacant and the district court
judge in Homer recently retired.
1:36:01 PM
MS. MEADE explained the current superior court judge coverage in
Homer and Kenai. She said having a superior court judge preside
over Homer cases has been problematic for many years. Kenai
superior court judges have handled Homer cases, which average
over 300 per year. This has not been the most efficient use of
resources, she said. In the past two years, a Kenai judge has
traveled to Homer more than 35 times to handle superior court
cases that arose. Typically, Kenai judges schedule Homer cases
one week per month, but the court schedule does change to
accommodate cases, such as an emergency CINA case, divorce case,
or guardianship case that arise in Homer. Covering Homer cases
also impacts Kenai cases since it takes time away from the bench
for the Kenai judge, she said. Further, three superior court
judges in Kenai retired in the past year, so Kenai has three
relatively new superior court judges. This provides a great
opportunity to address coverage in Homer, although if SB 41 does
not pass the court would continue to operate by having the
district court judge cover the district court cases.
1:37:45 PM
MS. MEADE said the current Valdez district court judge, who has
substantial experience, has often been appointed by the Alaska
Supreme Court (ASC) to handle superior court cases in
Glennallen, Cordova, and Valdez, or sometimes the Palmer judges.
That Valdez district court judge was recently appointed to serve
as a superior court judge in Juneau. The incoming district court
judge in Valdez may not have the experience, ability, and
willingness to travel to cover superior court cases so the ACS
would like the changes [ in SB 41], she said.
She related that the court considered alternatives, including
encouraging or requiring videoconferences in cases. For example,
the Kenai superior court judge has a video link to the Homer
courtroom to handle some matters. However, not all matters can
be handled by videoconferences, since the judge may need to be
present for some proceedings, such as cases that will terminate
parental rights, which have witnesses appear before the court.
Although videoconferences have helped alleviate the problem, it
has not wholly relieved it. The ACS has also considered other
options, including adding new superior court judges, but the ACS
determined it would be costly due to capital costs needed to
fund a new courtroom and office. Under the bill, the superior
court judges will use the same office equipment, courtroom and
resources as the district court judge offices currently use.
1:40:22 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification that these two
district court judges were the last holdouts of single judge
locations. She asked whether the ASC has gradually been working
to replace district court judges with superior court judges who
can handle all cases.
MS. MEADE said Valdez and Homer have been the sole courts
without a superior court judge; however, some locations have a
sole superior court judge, including Nome, Kotzebue, Sitka, and
Dillingham.
1:41:33 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on the number of
superior court cases in Valdez.
MS. MEADE answered that Valdez has about 200 superior court
cases. Although this would be a fairly-low caseload, the
proposed superior court judge would also handle all district
court filings in Valdez, Glennallen and Cordova. This would
provide the ASC additional coverage and flexibility since
Anchorage judges currently handle cases in rural areas such as
Sand Point and Unalaska, which the Valdez position could help
cover. Further, the superior court judge in Valdez could
alleviate some pressure on the Palmer court, she said.
1:43:03 PM
SENATOR KIEHL related his understanding that some court
locations have a magistrate. He asked for the effectiveness of
adding a magistrate to cover low-level cases and to continue
with a district court judge.
MS. MEADE said the higher-level cases are the ones that need
attention, including felonies and CINA cases. The ACS has had
adequate coverage for minor offenses and lower-level cases in
the district court. She reiterated the problem is with the
higher-level matters.
1:44:27 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD recalled that this bill topic was heard last
year, and she is supportive. She asked whether a magistrate
could fill in.
MS. MEADE answered that the magistrate judges, including one in
Cordova, handle minor offenses, such as fishing violations. She
reported that a half-time traveling magistrate in Valdez spends
the remaining half-time in Glennallen, due to traffic cases and
hunting violations. She reported that the magistrate judges
typically handle minor offenses, such as tickets, and in some
instances the magistrate can handle misdemeanors, which can
alleviate pressure on the lower-end cases.
1:45:47 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD recalled crime increases in Anchorage. She
asked whether the proposed superior court judge would be able to
handle criminal cases.
MS. MEADE answered that the proposed two superior court judges
can handle all felony and misdemeanor cases.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on whether district
court judges are limited and cannot handle felonies.
MS. MEADE said that is correct.
1:46:49 PM
CHAIR HUGHES referred to the fiscal note. She asked for the
salary and benefit cost comparison between district court and
superior court judges.
MS. MEADE answered that that the difference in salary and
benefits is about $35.5 thousand for one position or $71,000 for
both. The ACS would net back the average travel cost for a total
fiscal note of $62,000.
CHAIR HUGHES asked for further clarification on the base salary
for a district court judge and a superior court judge. She
assumed that benefit packages would be similar for both
positions.
MS. MEADE answered that a district court judge base salary is
$160,848 and a superior court judge salary is $189,720. In
further response to Chair Hughes, she stated the benefit
calculation is one-third of the salary or $41,000.
1:48:28 PM
CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the administration
would like to increase videoconferences. She asked for further
clarification on when it is necessary for a judge to be present
during proceedings.
MS. MEADE stated that some court rules designate when a witness
must participate or when the witness can opt not to be in the
room, depending on some constitutional and due process issues.
Generally, in criminal matters a criminal defendant has
constitutional rights to be present whenever evidence is
presented against them, which would apply to trials and some
hearings with witnesses present or when evidence is presented
against the defendant.
1:49:21 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the meeting.
1:49:36 PM
MS. MEADE explained that a judge has judicial discretion in
determining the level of witness assessment and courtroom
demeanor necessary. She suggested that judges would likely want
to be present for CINA cases and for some child custody cases,
to be respectful to the parties. She noted that in those cases
numerous parties are involved so the courtroom is often crowded.
She said that being present gives the judge a better sense of
what is occurring in the courtroom. Judges are likely not to
feel the need to be physically present at some routine hearings,
including trial-setting conferences.
1:51:09 PM
CHAIR HUGHES recapped that the judge would have discretion over
cases, especially civil cases, but the judge would be required
to be present in criminal cases where evidence is being
presented or witnesses are part of the proceedings.
MS. MEADE said she was unsure of precisely when a judge needed
to be present. She offered to research the criminal rules that
require videoconferencing but responded that generally her recap
is correct.
1:52:07 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked whether the same number of staff will be
needed for the superior court judges.
MS. MEADE said the ACS tried to keep the fiscal note small.
Currently Valdez has a one-half time clerk who fills in as an
in-court clerk. If additional in-court clerk resources were
needed, the court would move staff from other locations.
Currently, Homer has 2.5 or 3 positions who act as in-court
clerks. She added that district court judges do not have law
clerks, but superior court judges typically do. She acknowledged
that the ACS was not seeking law clerks but hopes to use other
positions to fill in for that and to use e-mail whenever
possible. The ACS has been trying to be flexible and change its
tradition of providing a law clerk for each judge due to budget
constraints.
1:54:12 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for further clarification on whether the
clerks would be from Anchorage or Kenai.
MS. MEADE explained that initially the ACS would likely use the
Kenai law clerks for the Homer superior court judge. In Valdez,
the current district court judge has primarily performed without
a law clerk, but when needed called upon a law clerk, usually
from Palmer. She said that it would depend on the circumstances,
that it may need be figured out informally and flexibly, but
everyone thinks it should be able to work.
1:55:26 PM
CHAIR HUGHES appreciated that the ACS has taken the lead and has
been innovative in terms of the budget resources.
1:55:43 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE, referring to the fiscal note, related his
understanding that the difference in personal services would
likely be $35.5 thousand per superior court judge for a total of
$71,000. He related the offset of $9,000 resulting in a net
savings and a total fiscal note of $62,000. He asked whether
other efficiencies that have not been identified could further
reduce the cost of these positions.
MS. MEADE answered that the ACS estimated hard travel costs but
subtracted $9,000 for travel costs and an estimate of accurate
savings, including anticipating that more videoconferences will
be held.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked for any efficiencies or benefits due to
those sitting in pretrial status for less time since it would
reduce the caseload.
MS. MEADE said she did not want to say these changes in SB 41
would make any difference in the speed in which cases are
processed. She did not wish to leave the impression that cases
would be handled faster but rather to change the way in which
the ACS provides a judicial resource to handle those cases.
1:58:43 PM
MS. MEADE recapped SB 41. This bill has two sections. The first
section changes the statute that sets the number of superior
court judges from 43 to 45 judges and the seats will be filled
with superior court judges. These judicial seats are currently
vacant, so the timing is excellent. The bill will give the ACS
the opportunity to increase the way the court system processes
cases in the third judicial district by having this more
flexible way to cover cases.
1:59:25 PM
CHAIR HUGHES clarified that the superior court judges can handle
felonies.
1:59:47 PM
CHAIR HUGHES opened public testimony on SB 41 and after first
determining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony on
SB 41.
[SB 41 was held in committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SJUD Agenda 2.11.19.pdf |
SJUD 2/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 41 version A.pdf |
HRLS 4/2/2019 11:30:00 AM SJUD 2/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 41 |
| SB041 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRLS 4/2/2019 11:30:00 AM SFIN 3/8/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 41 |
| SB041-JUD-ACS-01-30-19.pdf |
HRLS 4/2/2019 11:30:00 AM SJUD 2/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 41 |